AmericanConcrete Pumping Association

606 Enterprise Dr.

Lewis Center, OH 43035

PH: 614.431.5618 Fax: 614.431.6944

March 20, 2007

California Air Resources Board

Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairman

1001 I Street

Sacramento, CA 95812

Dear Members of the ARB,

The emergency amendment last December to re-open the Portable Registration Program was only the first step towards rectifying a gross injustice to the owners of portable engine equipment owners and to the residents of the state of California. This program still has many problems that need to be resolved before a permanent decision on the temporary changes becomes final.

1) Tier 0 engines need to be allowed into the statewide program. Just because you don’t want Tier 0 engines into the program, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They still continue to operate in this state every day. Allow the statewide registration program to fulfill its intended function and identify where these types of equipment are located. The statewide registration program should be an all inclusive program and not divided up amongst individual air districts – which may or may not even allow the engines into their program.

2) The “resident engine” policy will have costly and long term effects to the California used construction equipment market. Unless an equipment’s engine was previously operated in California, a brand new piece of equipment containing a Tier 3 engine must be purchased. Upgrading to new equipment is very costly to the small business owner and in fact, only just now becoming available. The first Tier 3 engine in the portable concrete pumping industry was just sold this past January. These engines are NOT readily available and will not be until much later. By matter of record, we also know that not very many, if hardly any at all, portable Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines were registered up until December, 2006 in the statewide program. This leaves a very limited quantity of used equipment available. What do you do if you can’t buy used equipment? I would hate to think that as a consumer, I had to buy a brand new car every time a cleaner model engine was produced. It is simply impractical.

3) The revised fee schedule is unjust. In fairness to those who actually registered their equipment in earlier years, we supported a late penalty for registration fees. However, charging for inspection fees when the inspections were not administered seems punitive. I would urge you to reconsider the fee schedule and reduce the fees by the yearly inspection fee.

My comments only reiterate what you have heard before. You’ve heard from many associations, organizations, and individuals who have all given you the same message in various ways. Your work is not done. Let’s take a practical approach and create a model program that can be viewed by other states as one that creates a cleaner environment and in doing so doesn’t break the backs of the small business owner. To leave the program “as is” without taking into consideration the suggestions you will hear on Thursday is simply wrong.

Sincerely,

Christi Collins

Executive Director, ACPA